Wakilii

Patel v Patel (Civil Case No. 110 of 1940)

East African Court of Appeal · [1940] EACA 43 · 1940 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit on a bond for recovery of money
Decision
Preliminary point of law decided in favour of defendant; matter to proceed to trial on merits

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that money-lending transactions by an unlicensed money-lender are illegal and void under the Money-lenders Ordinance, 1932. Evidence is admissible under section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove that the consideration recited in a bond was unlawful, thereby invalidating the bond. The defendant may adduce evidence to show that the bond was entered into by an unlicensed money-lender in the course of his business, rendering it illegal and void, not merely unenforceable.

Outcome

Preliminary point of law decided in favour of defendant; matter to proceed to trial on merits

Facts

The plaintiff sued on a bond for Sh. 13,439/65, alleging the defendant had defaulted on instalment payments. The bond recited that the debt arose from a partnership trading debt owed by the defendant and another partner to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had agreed to release the other partner from liability in consideration of the defendant personally undertaking to pay the full debt. The defendant did not deny executing the bond or defaulting on payments, but raised a defence that the plaintiff was an unlicensed money-lender at all material times, that the transaction was a money-lending one, and that the plaintiff had not complied with the Money-lenders Ordinance. The plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the defendant could not adduce evidence to vary the consideration recited in the bond.

Issues

  1. Whether evidence is admissible to prove that the consideration recited in a bond was unlawful, thereby rendering the bond void.
  2. Whether money-lending transactions by an unlicensed money-lender are illegal and void under the Money-lenders Ordinance, 1932.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Defendant permitted to adduce evidence that the transaction was a money-lending one by an unlicensed money-lender.

Rules and key headnotes

Money-lending — Unlicensed Money-lenders — Illegality of Transactions
Money-lending transactions entered into by an unlicensed money-lender in the course of business are illegal and void under the Money-lenders Ordinance, 1932, section 5, not merely unenforceable.
Documentary Evidence — Variance of Documents — Proof of Illegality
Where a bond recites a particular consideration, evidence is admissible under section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove that the consideration was unlawful and the bond therefore void, notwithstanding the general rule against varying the terms of a written instrument.
Prohibited Acts — Implied Prohibition — Public Protection
Where a statute imposes a penalty on an act for the protection of the public rather than merely for revenue purposes, the act is impliedly prohibited and contracts entered into in contravention are illegal, even if the statute does not expressly prohibit the act.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Money-lenders Ordinance, 1932 s.5
  • Indian Evidence Act s.92
  • Indian Evidence Act s.91
  • Money-lenders Act, 1900 s.2

Cases cited (5)

  • Lodge v National Union Investment Company [1907] 1 Ch 306
  • Victorian Daylesford Syndicate v Dott [1905] 2 Ch 624
  • Bonnard v Dott [1906] 1 Ch 740
  • Cohen v Lester (1939) 108 LJ KB 277
  • Kilonzo wa Kanyanya v Odhavji Purshozani & Bros (1949) 16 KLR 44

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Patel v Patel (Civil Case No. 110 of 1940) [1940] EACA 43 (1 January 1940)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.